DIGITAL EDITION

HOMEIN THE MAGAZINE

In This IssueApplications & InnovationsBetter BridgesBid ListFeatured ArticlesFinancial DistrictHighway ContractorKirk LandersLattatudesNew Road ProductsRoad ScienceRoadworksThe Last WordArchives

ARCHIVESWEB EXCLUSIVESBETTER BRIDGES

Bridge InventoryEditorialBetter Bridges Research PapersLinks

NEWS & ANALYSIS ARCHIVENews & ANALYSISEconomics

NEW ROAD PRODUCTSROAD SCIENCEINDUSTRY RESOURCES

AssociationsResearch PapersPress Releases

THE ROADOLOGISTVIDEOSCLASSIFIEDSNEWSLETTER

NEWSLETTERSUBSCRIBE

ROADY THE ROADBUILDERROADY THE ROADBUILDERORDER FORM

EVENT CALENDARMEDIA KITEDITORIAL CALENDARSUBSCRIBEREADER SERVICEWHO WE ARE

IInn tthhee MMaaggaazziinnee

Financial District: Counties keep fighting the economy

Sponsored by: Contech Construction Products

BBeetttteerr BBrriiddggeess:: BBrriiddggee IInnvveennttoorryy 22000099 SSttaattee ooffBBrriiddggeess

November 01, 2009

TThhee BBeetttteerr RRooaaddss BBrriiddggee IInnvveennttoorryy iiss aann eexxcclluussiivvee,, aawwaarrdd--wwiinnnniinngg aannnnuuaall ssuurrvveeyy tthhaatt hhaass bbeeeenn

ccoonndduucctteedd ssiinnccee 11997799.. BBrriiddggee eennggiinneeeerrss ffrroomm eevveerryy ssttaattee aanndd WWaasshhiinnggttoonn,, DD..CC..,, aarree sseett aa ssuurrvveeyy wwiitthh bbootthh qquuaalliittaattiivvee aanndd qquuaannttiittaattiivvee

qquueessttiioonnss.. TThhee FFeeddeerraall HHiigghhwwaayy AAddmmiinniissttrraattiioonn,, iinn ccoonnssuullttaattiioonn wwiitthh tthhee ssttaatteess,, hhaass aassssiiggnneedd aa ssuuffffiicciieennccyy rraattiinngg,, oorr SSRR,, ttoo eeaacchh bbrriiddggee ((2200

ffeeeett oorr mmoorree)) tthhaatt iiss iinnvveennttoorriieedd.. FFoorrmmuullaa SSRR rraattiinngg ffaaccttoorrss aarree aass oouuttlliinneedd iinn tthhee ccuurrrreenntt RReeccoorrddiinngg aanndd CCooddiinngg GGuuiiddee ffoorr SSttrruuccttuurreess

IInnvveennttoorryy aanndd AApppprraaiissaall SSII&&AA ooff tthhee NNaattiioonn’’ss BBrriiddggeess.. TThhee qquuaalliittaattiivvee ddaattaa iiss ggaatthheerreedd tthhrroouugghh aa qquueessttiioonnnnaaiirree aabboouutt mmaajjoorr iissssuueess

ccoonncceerrnniinngg bbrriiddggee ccoonnddiittiioonnss aanndd mmaaiinntteennaannccee..

SShhoocckkiinnggllyy hhiigghh nnuummbbeerr ooff bbrriiddggeess rreemmaaiinn ssuubb--ssttaannddaarrdd..

There are 597,787 bridges in America, 288,920 interstate and state bridges and 308,867 city/county/township bridges.

But 21.6 percent – or 62,504 – of the interstate and state bridges are structurally deficient (SD) orfunctionally obsolete (FO). And 25.7 percent of the city/county/township bridges – or 79,394 – are SD/FO.

Maintenance, personnel, training, age, environmental restrictions, a need to minimize traffic disruption,capacity and corrosion issues remain major barriers to lowering the rate of bridges becoming deficient,despite some respite coming from stimulus fund money.

Texas leads the nation with the most combined structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. Thestate has 9,564 — 19 percent — of its total 50,316 bridges as SD/FO. Of the total 32,862 interstate and statebridges, 4,182, or 31 percent, are SD/FO. Of the 17,454 total city/county/township bridges, 5,383 or 13

percent are SD/FO.

Pennsylvania is second with 9,130 of its total 23,562 bridges, or 39 percent, as SD/FO. The state has16,668 total interstate and state bridges, with 5,971 — 36 percent — reported as SD/FO. Forty-six percent,or 3,159 of all the state’s 6,875 city/county/township bridges are considered SD/FO.State officials note thatfunding is the greatest challenge to lowering the state’s rate of bridge deterioration, but corrosion, heavy saltuse and more traffic than bridges were designed to carry cause the greatest damage.

But, Lance Savant, P.E., with Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Design, says his stateexpects to be able to lower its rate of its structurally deficient and functionally obsolete in the coming year.“Pennsylvania has its accelerated bridge program which focuses on replacing/repairing SD bridges,” Savantsays. Nonetheless, bridges could certainly be improved if the state could “devote more funds to bridgepreservation…to keep the good bridges good,” he says. Many of the other states’ agencies echo the samesentiment.

Following Pennsylvania, in order,the other top five states with the highest number of combined total SD/FObridges are Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma.

Missouri has 24,096 total bridges, a combined total of 7,103, or 29 percent, which are SD/FO. There are10,249 total interstate and state bridges, 2,838, or 28 percent, of which are SD/FO. Of the 13,847 totalcity/county/township bridges, 4,265, or 31 percent are SD/FO.

Ohio has 6,993 — 23 percent — of the total 30,617 in the state being SD/FO. Of the total 11,639interstate and state bridges, 2,475, or 21 percent, are SD/FO. Of the total 18,978 city/county/townshipbridges, 4,518, or 24 percent, are SD/FO.

Finally, 6,904, or 29 percent, of Oklahoma’s 23,646 total bridges are SD/FO. Of its 7,660 total interstateand state bridges, 1,639, or 21 percent, are SD/FO. Thirty-three percent, or 5,265, of the state’s 15,986total city/county/township bridges are SD/FO.

Like Pennsylvania, Oklahoma also expects to be able to lower its number of SD/FO bridges within thecoming year. Bob Rusch, bridge division engineer for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, says thisis the fourth consecutive year the number of bridge projects in the state’s eight-year Construction WorkPlan has increased and represents the largest increase in bridge work ever incorporated into the plan.

“The department’s Federal Fiscal Years 2010 -2017 Construction Work Plan enumerates priorities forhighway and bridge construction during the next eight years and includes more than $4 billion inimprovements to the state’s bridges and highways,” Rusch says. “The plan continues the agency’s focus onbridges with an increase of more than 100 bridges over last year’s plan for a total of more than 560.” Inaddition, he adds, “The department is also continuing to make strides in our State Bridge rehabilitationProgram which provides significant repairs to existing bridges.”

The actual number of bridges doesn’t always paint the most accurate picture of deficiency or obsolesence. Astate with fewer bridges could have a higher percentage of bridges that are SD/FO, but the numbers ofSD/FO bridges could actually be relatively low.

The highest percentage of SD/FO bridges in the nation – 55percent – is in the District of Columbia. Bypercentage, Rhode Island** comes in second with 53 percent SD/FO bridges, followed by Pennsylvania at 39percent, Hawaii at 38 percent and New York at 37 percent.

Regardless of what the official statistics show about the number of bridges that are SD and FO, some bridgeengineers say that we should look at the square footage of SD and FO bridges to get a true picture of thesituation. Ray Mumphrey, highway bridge program manager with the Louisiana Department of

Transportation, says that while the number of SD/FO bridges may have decreased, the square footagemay actually be increasing. “It may look like we’re making progress [in the nation] with the number ofdeficient bridges, however larger bridges are becoming deficient which increases the square footage ofdeficient bridges,” Mumphrey says. “There are a lot of interstate [bridges] becoming deficient, althoughthe numbers of deficient structures may have gone down.”

Adds John Jones, M.S., P.E., Bridge Manuals, Modeling and Policy Engineer with the Kansas Department ofTransportation (KDOT): “In all cases, square footage is the best indicator of [their] status.”

CClleeaarraannccee aanndd ccaappaacciittyy ccoonncceerrnnss

Even after the August 2007 collapse of I-35W Mississippi River Bridge in Minnesota, bridge needs arestill not being seen as “critical,” says Dan Holderman, P.E., a bridge management engineer with the NorthCarolina Department of Transportation. “Even after the I-35W collapse, [there is still] very littleemphasis on bridges and other infrastructure.”

Investigators found that the Minneapolis bridge, which killed 13 people when it collapsed into theMississippi River failed because of a flaw in its design, when it announced its findings on Jan. 14, 2008.The designers had specified a metal plate that was too thin to serve as a junction of several girders,investigators say, according to a New York Times report immediately following the findings.

The bridge, which was designed in the 1960s, lasted 40 years. However, like most other bridges, the Timesreported, it gradually gained weight during that period, as workers installed concrete structures toseparate eastbound and westbound lanes and made other changes, adding strain to the weak spot.

This is when the bridge problem becomes more than a structural issue. It also becomes a capacity and aclearance issue. Although bridges can be functionally obsolete (e.g. geometrically deficiencies such aswaterway openings, width, clearance issues, etc.) they are still considered safe to the motoring public evenif they aren’t up to the standards – such as the current-day recommended width – for modern-daystandards and commerce.

“We have so many oversize and overweight vehicles that go through Indiana, [and] we have to routevehicles all over the place because of structurally deficient, low-capacity or low-clearance bridges,” saidBill Dittrich, state bridge inspection engineer for the Indiana Department of Transportation. “In the earlyto mid 1980s, we [the state of Indiana] didn’t allow permitted vehicles on our interstate highways. Now,we are letting trucks go over them.”

Mike Clements, Georgia Department of Transportation state bridge engineer, says that’s part of theproblem in his state, too. “Increased weight limits” is Georgia’s major cause of bridge damage, he says.

Because structurally deficient bridges can also be a safety concern to the public, Indiana DOT’s Dittrichsays, highway agencies, the media and political people have keyed in on that term, “structurallydeficient.” But that is not where the money is being spent. “We’re spending a ton of money on addingcapacity, but not addressing structurally deficient the way we should. Many of our existing bridges arereaching the point where they are now becoming structurally deficient.,” he says.

Bridges can be neglected for a while and their condition won’t change a great deal. But all of a sudden,Dittrich says, “there will be a whole lot of structurally deficient bridges and there just isn’t the money toaddress them all at once.”

TThhee ttrraaiinniinngg aanndd rreetteennttiioonn pprreeddiiccaammeenntt

Training and retention is a major concern when it comes to bridge inspection and repair. It’s no secretthat the construction industry faces a shortage of qualified workers, and it carries over into bridge repair

and inspection. “Bridge inspectors aren’t given the respect they should be,” Dittrich says, adding that amindset exists that “anyone can do the work.” But it’s to the contrary. “The qualifications keepincreasing,” Dittrich says, “and you need training.” He likens it to an untrained paramedic showing upto an emergency scene. “You don’t want to have a guy to show up in an ambulance who hasn’t hadCPR training in 10 years,” Dittrich notes. “Half of my inspectors aren’t engineers, but they areexpected to know things an engineer would know…and we don’t have adequate funds for training andtravel to training. If I can’t keep them up to date, how can they be expected to see the problems theyneed to see? Or, they may see them [problems] but not understand what is significant and what isn’t.”

The growth of virtual training tool such as Webinars has helped somewhat with the lack of funds fortraining. However, when there are a limited number of inspectors this training takes time away fromfieldwork regardless whether it’s on a computer or in person traveling to a training site. Dittrich pointsout that one of his inspectors just completed a Webinar on gusset plates but that employee said heended up working for what seemed like 24 hours if he counted in virtual training and completingpaperwork on bridge inspection reports. “You can inspect all you want, but it doesn’t do any good ifyou don’t have enough personnel or enough funding to address the problems that are found,” Dittrichsaid. There is enough work to keep his inspectors busy all the time, he says, but it’s still a majorproblem if they aren’t properly trained or if there aren’t enough of them to get the job done and donewell. “Not having enough personnel is our No. 1 problem. The work keeps increasing thereforeeveryone has to do more.”

Though Congress and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved funds in the last highwaybill — SAFETEA-LU — that were to be used for training and development and would cover travel, perdiem, etc., the money ultimately comes off the top of the money a state gets for its bridge program,Dittrich says. “We’re caught in a situation. The federal government and Congress said, ‘We mademoney available,’ but the states need money for construction. That means we don’t have money to giveto the guys for training. I think every state has this kind of issue. The regular money we get, we use thebest we can. But we aren’t necessarily being effective with getting the structurally deficient bridgestaken care of.”

Dittrich says to address the need for better training, his state inspectors have peer group meetings 4 to6 times a year. Bridge inspectors from throughout the state get together to talk about ideas, inspectionand repair methods that have and have not worked, creating a forum to share knowledge.

“Nothing frustrates a bridge inspector more than to see something that’s fixed and have it fail again infive years,” Dittrich says. “If you put a new deck down and it’s not cured properly, then it cracks, saltgets in, and it deteriorates. But decks and concrete can be made and cured right. It all starts with themix and rebar…knowing where to stop the rebar.”

This is where the training comes in, Dittrich points out, because it can mean the difference between abridge that lasts and a bridge that falls into disrepair before its time. “If you jackhammer off all the badconcrete, , you still have good with chlorides in it,” he points out. “You’ll have new concrete with nochlorides next to old concrete with chlorides. This difference in chloride concentration will set up abattery cell which will accelerate the corrosion of the rebars in the vicinity. Therefore testing should beconducted prior to making repairs to see if the choride levels are low enough to use zinc anodes, or ifmore advanced cathodic protection is required.

“That means you need to have a corrosion specialist go through it,” Dittrich points out. “But this is allnew stuff — it’s not done on a widespread basis. We’d love to have our maintenance people be able todo this when they make a patch because they fix an area…when they come back a year later, it’s worsethan ever. It all comes back to training, so when they start [on a project], they [know how to] do it rightso it will last.”

EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall cchhaalllleennggeess

Environmental restrictions continue to affect how well states and municipalities can replace andrepair deficient bridges. These restrictions often slow down the process of repairing and replacingbridges, and sometimes, a less-appropriate structure type is used to replace the bridge, KDOT’s Jonesnotes. This just exacerbates the problem of structurally deficient bridges because more appropriatematerials that would keep a bridge in better condition longer are not used.

“When a small span structure can efficiently be replaced with a standard box culvert, theenvironmental regulatory agencies providing oversight feel that culvert floor is considered ‘loss ofstream length’ and has to be mitigated,” Jones points out. “Also, if there are threatened orendangered species present or perceived to be present, that also has to be mitigated.”

The process for reviewing this is complicated by the wide variations in what is considered“acceptable,” even to the point that it depends on who in the various agencies is conducting thereview, he says.

“Additionally, we must develop a full set of plans, then send it in and wait,” Jones says. “The processis difficult, time consuming and expensive. The frustrating part is [that] some of the reviewers do notunderstand the bridge engineering principles involved. And some of solutions are not hydraulicallyfeasible.”

Adds Steve Anderson from Nebraska’s Department of Roads, Bridge Division: “Environmentalconstraints hamper the swift programming and completion of projects.”

TTiimmee iiss ttiicckkiinngg

Time constraints are also a major roadblock to repairing and rebuilding the bridges that need themost work, says Dittrich.

“When it came to using ARRA Funds, often the the bridges that needed the most work, weren’t theones worked on,” Dittrich says. “I had a number of bridges that we proposed in the early part of theARRA Program that we wanted to work on and do them right.” But as time progressed, he says, thedeadlines were getting closer and closer so although the agency had money to spend, functionallyobsolete or structurally deficient bridges weren’t the ones necessarily worked on. Basic maintenancewas done to some of the bridges, but Dittrich says his agency will have to go back and do additionalwork on those where we couldn’t take care of all the problems. “To increase the vertical clearanceunder bridge to address the obsolescence can take a while unless a project is ready to go,” Dittrichnotes.

And the time to finish a project once it does get underway is problematic. For example, he says, whenit’s time to do a concrete pour, “instead of slowing down to do it right, as soon as concrete trucks getout there [on the jobsite], people just rush, rush, rush. Everyone is in a hurry.”

Richard Dunne, P.E., manager of structural engineering for the New Jersey Department ofTransportation (NJDOT), also feels the time crunch. He says if he could change any aspect of hisdepartment to improve the bridges under its jurisdiction, it would be “[a] willing[ness] toinconvenience motorists more.” Currently, Dunne says, “we do the majority of our work at nightand/or in very small time windows.”

The Kansas Department of Transportation also identifies with this challenge. “It seems like no onewants to take the heat for detouring traffic, so we end up carrying traffic through construction,which requires the work to be phased,” says KDOT’s John Jones. “In some instances — like a rail

repair — this is less of an issue. However, for deck repair or replacement, this becomeschallenging.” v

Even with the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), better known as the stimulus,funding availability is still one of the biggest challenges in lowering the number of states’ deficientbridges, say respondents to the Better Roads survey. From The Midwest to the South to theSoutheast to South Dakota and even as far-flung as Hawaii and Washington, D.C, agency officialsstill rank funding availability as one of the greatest challenges to repairing derelict bridges.

However, ARRA has provided some relief and has increased the level of funding for bridges. It hasenabled maintenance and reconstruction of some bridges that would otherwise not be possible.The results of ARRA spending range from having no effect or a minimal effect to modest orsignificant impact. These responses are not unfamiliar to highway transportation official assessingthe impact of the stimulus. Anwar Ahmad, assistant bridge engineer for the Virginia Departmentof Transportation, tells Better Roads that the stimulus “was a much-needed booster for our bridgeprogram.”

David Koenig, bridge structural service engineer with the Missouri Highway and TransportationDepartment, agrees, noting that the ARRA has had a very positive, “large impact” on Missouri’sbridge projects. “Many bridge projects have been moved up in the schedule and more have beenaddressed,” he says.

Minnesota has benefited from stimulus money. “Over 50 bridges on Minnesota’s state and localhighways have been advanced with ARRA funding,” says Tom C. Styrbicki, P.E., bridgeconstruction and maintenance engineer, Minnesota Department of Transportation Bridge Office.“The projects include everything from minor repairs to full bridge replacements. The ARRAprogram was a particular benefit to bridges in the local system.”

Steve Anderson, Nebraska Department of Roads, Bridge Divisions, says the stimulus “hasaccelerated a few projects [at the] state and local level.”

Don Cooney, infrastructure project management administration, Department of Transportation,Asset Management

Division, Washington, D.C., also notes that “the ARRA has increased the level of funding forbridges” in The District.

Chris Potter, Utah Department of Transportation, Bridge Design & Operations, says his state isusing the money to replace several structurally deficient bridges and bridge decks. “In addition,we are using it to apply preservation treatment to several bridges,” he says.

AA tteemmppoorraarryy ffuunnddiinngg ffrreennzzyy

Kent Barnes, Montana Department of Highways, Chief Bridge Bureau, says that although theARRA helped to fund a few additional short-span bridges, for the most part, it had a “low impacton the bridge program.”

Paul Santo, bridge design engineer, Hawaii Department of Transportation, says the stimulus alsohas “assisted in funding a couple of bridge projects, [but] it has not made a significant difference.”Benjamin W. Foster, assistant bridge maintenance engineer, Maine Department of Transportation,says in his state, “a modest amount” of money was used for bridges.

Kansas DOT’s John Jones says some bridges were “let” that otherwise would not have been, but“we’re still waiting on next year’s distribution.” Essentially, he says, some projects that were

financially marginal became feasible. The same was true for Texas. Alan Kowalik, P.E., bridgeinspection engineer for the Texas State Department of Transportation, says that bridges thatwere on the state’s “Five-Year List” were moved up to be replaced and repaired.

WWhhaatt mmaajjoorr oovveerrhhaauullss aarree nneeeeddeedd ttoo tthhee ssyysstteemmss ooff ppllaannnniinngg,, bbuuiillddiinngg aanndd mmaaiinnttaaiinniinngg bbrriiddggeess

iinn tthhee UUnniitteedd SSttaatteess aatt tthhee ffeeddeerraall,, ssttaattee aanndd llooccaall lleevveell?? WWhhyy??

Wayne J. Seger, civil engineering manager 2, Tennessee Department of Transportation, BridgeInspection/Repair Office: “Keep politics out of bridge replacement selection. Replacementselection should be need-based only. Do not divert bridge funds to other programs.”

Al Harris, resource management analyst, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, DivisionofMaintenance: “Less money spent on architecturally pleasing details and more on maintenancefriendly bridges.”

Anwar Ahmad, assistant bridge engineer with the Virginia Department of Transportation:“Adoption of a national ‘maintenance and preservation first’ policy supported by a reliable andsustained funding mechanism. Focusing on deficient bridges alone will lead bridge owners tofocus on addressing or reacting to worst-condition first [bridges]. A successful bridge programshould have three focus areas: 1.) Ordinary and preventive maintenance, 2.) Rehabilitation, and3.) Replacement and new construction. In most cases, the most feasible treatment for a deficientbridge is replacement. The same or higher emphasis needs to be placed on preservation asplaced on replacement and new construction activities and needs.”

Paul Santo, bridge design engineer, Hawaii Department of Transportation: “More funding at alllevels.”

IIff yyoouu ccoouulldd cchhaannggee aannyy aassppeecctt ooff yyoouurr ddeeppaarrttmmeenntt ttoo iimmpprroovvee yyoouurr bbrriiddggeess,, wwhhaatt wwoouulldd iitt bbee??

Noel Clocksin, secondary road engineer for the South Dakota Department of Transportation: “Amore streamlined federal aid process and state process for local structure so we can getdeficient structures replaced more quickly.”

Paul Jensen, Montana Department of Highways’ Bridge Bureau: “Increased maintenancebecause repair is cheaper then replace[ment].”

Alan Kowalik, P.E., bridge inspection engineer for the Texas State Department of Transportation:“More bridge maintenance to keep them from becoming ’50.”

Dan Holderman, P.E., bridge management engineer with the North Carolina Department ofTransportation: “Bridge funding [because] more bridges become deficient each year than areremoved from the list, [and a] larger dedicated bridge maintenance fund.”

Don Cooney, infrastructure project management administration, Department of Transportation,Asset Management Division, Washington, D.C.: “Improvement in the promptness of fundingand procurement.”

Lee Floyd, bridge maintenance engineer, South Carolina Department of Highways: “Prioritizing.[The] Commission took away a good system.”

Al Harris, resource management analyst, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Division ofMaintenance: “Preventative maintenance costs less than waiting for a bridge element to go bad

and then replacing it.”

Travis McDaniel, P.E., bridge engineer, Wisconsin Department of Transportation: “Morefocus on preventative maintenance.”

Charles P. Brand, bridge engineer with the Arkansas Department Highway TransportationDepartment: “Implement bridge management with a staff dedicated to only that function [to]stretch funding $$ more efficiently and cost effectively.”

Chris Potter, Utah Department of Transportation, Bridge Design & Operations: “Havededicates structures staff to oversee bridge construction. Our construction inspectors don’thave the experience to oversee all aspects of a bridge construction.”

Mitchell K. Carrs, P.E., bridge engineer, Mississippi Department of Transportation: Reducebottlenecks in project processes to expedite bridge replacements and rehabilitation,specifically environmental.

Tom C. Styrbicki, P.E., bridge construction and maintenance engineer, Minnesota Departmentof Transportation Bridge Office: “Increase funding for bridge replacement and repair tomaintain a network condition level that is acceptable.”

Click here for a pdf version of the 2009 Bridge Inventory

Tags: ARRA Funds, bridges, capacity, clearance, environmentally challenges, functionallyobsolete, retention, SAFETEA-LU, state bridges, structurally deficient, system overhaul,trainingEmail/SharePrintRSS

Advertising|Subscribe|Site Map|Home

© Copyright 2009 Randall-Reilly Publishing Co. LLCAll rights reserved.

Cancel